preview_post

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the tool is non-publishing and returns formatted text plus thread splits. It could mention whether any changes or side effects occur, but 'without actually publishing' covers the most important behavioral trait.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds only relevant operational details. Every sentence contributes either the scope, return behavior, or when to use the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists (context signal) and full parameter schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, return content, non-publishing nature, and recommended usage. Minor gaps like platform-specific behavior details are covered by the output schema or are unnecessary for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about content being markdown and platforms being selectable, but largely recaps what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's job: preview content formatting per platform. It explicitly contrasts with publishing via 'without actually publishing' and is distinct from sibling publish_post, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Direct usage guidance is provided: 'Use this to verify formatting before calling publish_post.' This explicitly names the alternative and the appropriate sequence, telling an agent when to choose this tool rather than publish_post.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.